Someone mentioned Tom Cruise? What I can't stand are organisations who take advantage of addiction sufferers - organisations like Scientology.

Yup, somehow an organisation that kills (Lisa McPherson, look it up, there are others), and poses as a religion whilst taking hundreds of millions of dollars from people isn't really in the position where they should be preaching morality.

Again, religious topics are in no way relevant to the topic of Dank's Bank, please stop trying to derail this thread.

Isn't that simply adorable!

Like religion, drug use/abuse/policy topics are in no way relevant to the topic of Dank's Bank. If dank has admitted publicly that he huffs cheeba, it is no different than Jamie Dimon admitting to drinking a martini (as far as running a business is concerned). It's a non-issue. Your fixation on the matter is psychopathic.

The drug abuse problems are the only thing undermining this otherwise stellar business.

Proof, please. You will have to show that dank's substance use has had a direct effect on his business (as described in this thread), and his customer's returns. Good luck! (facts count, your speculation does not)

I have already posted the reasons there are for concern. Drug addicts are more likely to steal, which puts customer funds at risk. Drug addicts are more likely to miss work, which puts the business at risk when the owner is the one with the drug problem. Drug use damages the brain and the ability to think, which makes it more likely an owner might make bad decisions. Drug users face risk of arrest which could threaten the existence of the business if the owner is in jail. Driving while under the influence also risk arrest as well as a likely chance of death of the owner. These are all facts any potential investor should be aware of.

Dank's personal religious beliefs do not carry such risks, and are thus off topic due to the lack of relevance to the business.

"Money is like manure: Spread around, it helps things grow. Piled up in one place, it just stinks."

I have already posted the reasons there are for concern. Drug addicts are more likely to steal, which puts customer funds at risk. Drug addicts are more likely to miss work, which puts the business at risk when the owner is the one with the drug problem. Drug use damages the brain and the ability to think, which makes it more likely an owner might make bad decisions. Drug users face risk of arrest which could threaten the existence of the business if the owner is in jail. Driving while under the influence also risk arrest as well as a likely chance of death of the owner. These are all facts any potential investor should be aware of.

Yeah...thing is, it doesn't matter what drug addicts are more/less likely to do - since you haven't proven dank is a drug addict. Your speculations don't qualify as facts. (hic)

I have already posted the reasons there are for concern. Drug addicts are more likely to steal, which puts customer funds at risk. Drug addicts are more likely to miss work, which puts the business at risk when the owner is the one with the drug problem. Drug use damages the brain and the ability to think, which makes it more likely an owner might make bad decisions. Drug users face risk of arrest which could threaten the existence of the business if the owner is in jail. Driving while under the influence also risk arrest as well as a likely chance of death of the owner. These are all facts any potential investor should be aware of.

Yeah...thing is, it doesn't matter what drug addicts are more/less likely to do - since you haven't proven dank is a drug addict. Your speculations don't qualify as facts. (hic)

He has admitted his drug use and frequently driving under the influence, I need not prove what he has admitted.

"Money is like manure: Spread around, it helps things grow. Piled up in one place, it just stinks."

Being high 80% of the time you drive is clear evidence of addiction. It implies daily use at all hours of the day. He will of course deny this heavy use and dangerous behavior means he is an addict but that is just part of the disease.

Here is what addicts in denial sound like, we've seen examples of all of it from him in this thread. The rationalizing and democratic disease state being extremely prominent, in addition to trying to avoid and manipulate the discussion by trying to discuss random topics like religion. There has been constant minimizing of the dangers of drugs and constant references to how other problems also kill people which is classic comparing.

So dank used to be high 80% of the time he got behind the wheel. Do you understand the use of tense in a sentence? Apparently not.

Please provide evidence that dank is high 80% of the time he's behind the wheel NOW. Thanks in advance.

I understand tense perfectly, you do not understand addiction in the least. It is an incurable disease that never goes away. He was an addict yesterday and he is an addict today and he has admitted he still uses drugs.

Every risk of addiction is still a potent risk for a drug using addict regardless of what they say about their current use. Addicts are notorious liars, not because they are bad people but because that is what the disease does to them.

Quote

Lying is so common among people with addictions that it is often thought to be part of the process of addiction. But why do people with addictions lie? And what can you do about it?They Lie To Cover Up the Addiction

Although not all addictive behaviors are against the law, many are. Even those that aren't are highly stigmatized, even if they are socially encouraged in moderation. It becomes second nature for people with addictions to cover up their addictive behavior.Tip: Don't take lying personallyThey Lie to Avoid Confrontation

Although family members often find people with addictions to be confrontational, in reality, they often want to avoid confrontation. They rely heavily on their addictive behavior as a way of coping, and often do not have other well-developed ways of coping with the demands and stresses of life. Being confronted by another person is very stressful, and that is something they have a hard time coping with.Tip: When tackling a difficult topic, try to stay matter-of-fact about it. Use language to reflect your own perspective, rather than blaming the person with the addiction.People With Addictions Don’t Want to be Forced to Change

People with addictions tend to have a stubborn streak. Even though they may find their addictive behavior pleasurable in the early stages, intense persistence is required for an addiction to develop. They have to continue doing it despite unpleasant consequences.

This makes it very hard for them to handle criticism. They know first hand that what they are doing isn’t in anyone’s best interests, especially their own, but they have decided that it works for them, and they are sticking to it. Neither you nor anyone else will persuade them otherwise.

People with addictions can and do change, often without help. However, they do this when they feel ready, or when they realize the consequences of their behavior will continue to worsen unless they change. They will lie, often about the extent of their addictive behavior, because they want to avoid you pressuring them to change.Tip: Try to give information that might influence the person to make their own mind up to change, rather than trying to persuade them to change.They Want to Escape Negativity

People with addictions often see their behavior as a kind of holding pattern, hoping that things will work themselves out and they won’t need the addiction any more. A good example is the gambler who believes he will quit after one big win.

The last thing someone with an addiction wants is to be reminded of negative aspects of their behavior, especially if it is in a blaming way. Relationships can become very negative experiences for them if they feel constantly criticized by their loved ones, and so they feel they have to cover up their behavior all the time with lies.

Tip: Try to focus on what will be better if things change, not what will be worse if they don’t.Others Often Go Along With the Lies

You know your loved one has told a lie. You know what really happened. But for some reason, you allow them to lie without letting them know that you know.

This sends one of two messages:

Either: "You told a lie and I didn’t notice – so if you lie again, I might not notice next time either."

Or: "You told a lie and I did notice, but I’m pretending to believe you – so if you lie again, I’ll pretend I believe you that time as well."

Tip: Either avoid discussing the subject completely, or simply state what you know happened, rather than asking questions and going along with the answers.People Don’t Make It Clear What They Want and Expect

You hate that your loved one goes out drinking, taking drugs, or engaging in addictive behavior all the time, but you think they will dislike you or think you aren’t “cool” if you say anything about it. You reason that what they are doing isn’t really hurting anyone, and isn’t really that bad. You think, “I’ll wait until something bad happens and then I’ll mention it.”

The problem for the person with the addiction is that they didn’t even know you had a problem with what they were doing. By the time they sense disapproval, they are entrenched in their addictive behavior, and lying seems like the simplest thing to do.

Tip: Give feedback gently and early, preferably as soon as their behavior bothers you.Life Without an Addiction Can Seem Like a Void

When people become addicted, their lives revolve around their addictive behavior or substance. Although they may wish to quit “one day,” for today, life without their addiction can seem frighteningly empty. If you don’t understand how this emptiness drives people back into their addictive behavior, they will tune in to that, and lie to shut you up.

Tip: Mention in a kind and positive way what you would like to see happening instead of the addictive behavior, preferably before addictive behavior becomes part of your routine.People With Addictions Feel Ashamed

No-one likes being humiliated. And addictions often make people behave in ways that cause them embarrassment and regret. Having this pointed out by another person, particularly someone they want to think well of them, causes them great shame.

Many theorists believe that shame underlies the process of addiction. John Bradshaw, a recovered alcoholic who went on to be a counselor and prominent author, believed that toxic shame keeps people stuck in addictions and past problems.

Patrick Carnes, a leading authority on sex addiction, also considers shame to be the driving force behind compulsive sexual behavior. This view is supported by authors such as Susan Cheever, a self-proclaimed sex addict and recovering alcoholic.

Remembering that your loved one feels ashamed, embarrassed or humiliated by certain subjects, and particularly their shortcomings arising from their addictions, can be helpful in being more compassionate. However, going along with what you know to be a lie is a form of enabling that may avoid outward embarrassment, but will do nothing to relieve your loved one’s inner emotional pain.

Tip: Build up your loved one’s pride in areas of their life that are unrelated to their addiction.

Giving up the drugs is the only way to avoid the pitfalls of addiction, and Dank has not done so.

Quote

We know that addiction is a chronic disease, now remember, there are permanent brain changes that occur, that last forever; once an addict, always an addict. So if you want to stay in recovery, you pretty much have to apply yourself for the rest of your life. It's like any other chronic disease, for example if you've got high blood pressure under control with medication and lifestyle changes, but then you remove the medicine or the lifestyle changes, the symptoms are going to come back. The same principle applies to addiction, you can go to a substantial inpatient program, but if you don't continue to engage in some accountable, after-care program, it's very very likely that the symptoms of alcoholism or addiction will come back.

I have not claimed he was high 80% of the time now, I have merely pointed out that only addicts get high for all hours of the day every day and Dank has admitted doing so. Addiction is a permanent condition and he is still, by his own admission, using. All the concerns you would have for an active drug addict are on the table. A concerned investor does not have the luxury of simply taking an addicts word for it that despite their continuing drug use they are in control of all of their faculties.

"Money is like manure: Spread around, it helps things grow. Piled up in one place, it just stinks."

I have not claimed he was high 80% of the time now, I have merely pointed out that only addicts get high for all hours of the day every day and Dank has admitted doing so. Addiction is a permanent condition and he is still, by his own admission, using. All the concerns you would have for an active drug addict are on the table. A concerned investor does not have the luxury of simply taking an addicts word for it that despite their continuing drug use they are in control of all of their faculties.

Your claim is that since dank is a drug addict, Dank Bank is a (relatively) high risk investment. You have yet to offer ANY factual evidence to support to your claim.

I have not claimed he was high 80% of the time now, I have merely pointed out that only addicts get high for all hours of the day every day and Dank has admitted doing so. Addiction is a permanent condition and he is still, by his own admission, using. All the concerns you would have for an active drug addict are on the table. A concerned investor does not have the luxury of simply taking an addicts word for it that despite their continuing drug use they are in control of all of their faculties.

Your claim is that since dank is a drug addict, Dank Bank is a (relatively) high risk investment. You have yet to offer ANY factual evidence to support to your claim.

As I have said, Dank has admitted to using drugs for greater than 80% of the day every day which is a behavior only addicts engage in and has admitted he is currently still using drugs. He has admitted what I have accused him of so I have no need to provide proof.

If he would consent to regular drug tests from a testing firm of my choosing I would be happy to pay for it so we can get the documented truth out there about his current use of illegal substances.

"Money is like manure: Spread around, it helps things grow. Piled up in one place, it just stinks."

I have not claimed he was high 80% of the time now, I have merely pointed out that only addicts get high for all hours of the day every day and Dank has admitted doing so. Addiction is a permanent condition and he is still, by his own admission, using. All the concerns you would have for an active drug addict are on the table. A concerned investor does not have the luxury of simply taking an addicts word for it that despite their continuing drug use they are in control of all of their faculties.

Your claim is that since dank is a drug addict, Dank Bank is a (relatively) high risk investment. You have yet to offer ANY factual evidence to support to your claim.

i would say it too

investing in a drug addicted person IS a high risk investment

even if dank wasnt an anonymous idiot who needs cars and mansions and crack pipe shops it still consider him more of a scam than an investment

at least pirate had the decency to fake intelligence with his scam ......